Several hundred use a network, someone infringes—can’t blame the owner.

A Finnish District Court has ruled that the owner of an open WiFi network is not liable for copyright infringement by others using that network.

“The applicants were unable to provide any evidence that the connection-owner herself had been involved in the file-sharing,” the defendant’s attorneys wrote in an English-language press release on Monday. “The court thus examined whether the mere act of providing a WiFi connection not protected with a password can be deemed to constitute a copyright-infringing act.”

The case was brought by the Finnish Anti-Piracy Centre, a coalition of intellectual property rights managers in Finland. The group sued the woman for €6,000 ($7,700) for copyright infringement. The alleged infringement occurred after an audience of several hundred were attending a play at defendant's home on July 14, 2010, and apparently at least one person downloaded some copyrighted material without permission.

The new ruling in Finland appears to fall in line with a lack of liability for open WiFi network operators in the United States, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

The group says open WiFi is “a mere conduit for the communications of others, and often enjoys statutory immunities. Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, there is a safe harbor for service providers who offer ‘the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user’s choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.’ That definition fits a provider of free public WiFi as easily as a traditional DSL provider.”

Great, but does the Finnish judicial system work like the English or the US where precedent cases are basis for similar ones? Because if not than you do know that next week a judge can rule that you are liable.

Great, but does the Finnish judicial system work like the English or the US where precedent cases are basis for similar ones? Because if not than you do know that next week a judge can rule that you are liable.

Judges do not write the law, the only interpret it.

If one judge's interpretation of the law goes a particular direction, then chances are very high other judges will draw the same conclusion.

In fact, other judges may even get pissed off over any case brought before them where the defendant is clearly innocent, and the prosecution will be dealt with harshly.

OT: This ruling is good and makes sense, and is necessary for public WiFi to exist.

Public WiFI might be good thing, but it's not necessary. And if it does exists, it shouldn't be unregulated, if only for the obvious reasons.

Yes, it is necessary. Apparently, you do not realize how dependent people are on the internet today. Secondly, unregulated and saying "You are not responsible for someone using your connection in an illegal (currently) method that you didn't know about" are two different things.

Lastly, what are the 'obvious reasons'? In this case, I tend to believe that 'regulation' is codespeak for keeping people from sharing information among each other like we did in the past using physical media and hand it from one person to another.

I was wondering about the "obvious reasons" myself. I can't imagine a scenario where it would be good restrict open WIFI. For no other reason, it provides folks who may need it some anonymity. We can't restrict everything on the basis that 'someone' might do something questionable.

Yes, it is necessary. Apparently, you do not realize how dependent people are on the internet today. Secondly, unregulated and saying "You are not responsible for someone using your connection in an illegal (currently) method that you didn't know about" are two different things.

I know how I am dependent on the internet, but that's not the problem - it's useful, very useful, but not necessary, if you see what I mean. It's not necessary as in food or drink, it's just very, very valuable for our day-to-day lives.

Abresh wrote:

Lastly, what are the 'obvious reasons'? In this case, I tend to believe that 'regulation' is codespeak for keeping people from sharing information among each other like we did in the past using physical media and hand it from one person to another.

I strongly believe in internet neutrality. However, I'm afraid that the lack of accountability on the internet is causing more problems than it's solving. Is there any "big" internet projects that managed to bring any kind of supplementary value due to lack of accountability?I believe that you should be able to pass around encrypted information with anyone you'd like - I don't believe you should be able to anonymously advocate violence.

I strongly believe in internet neutrality. However, I'm afraid that the lack of accountability on the internet is causing more problems than it's solving. Is there any "big" internet projects that managed to bring any kind of supplementary value due to lack of accountability?I believe that you should be able to pass around encrypted information with anyone you'd like - I don't believe you should be able to anonymously advocate violence.

So you decided to go with "advocate violence" instead of "child porn" card then?

It is somewhat odd that when an individual offers free wifi, it becomes a problem of accountability, a great threat to content holders and advocates revolt, violence, childporn etc. But when a coffee shop offers free wifi hardly anybody even batters an eye, when in fact there is no difference. In a coffee shop there is no accountability as anybody can use it. And no way to trace the users if they change their computers MAC number, a trivial thing to do.

And what is even more odd, in most countries the laws protect telcos from user infringements. And in many countries the definition of telco is getting paid for offering connection. It is twisted logic if offering somethig free would make the offerer accountable from whatever is done with the offer, and charging and making profit out of same thing would be protected.

So you decided to go with "advocate violence" instead of "child porn" card then?

Yeah You didn't have to point it out!

Redo from start wrote:

It is somewhat odd that when an individual offers free wifi, it becomes a problem of accountability, a great threat to content holders and advocates revolt, violence, childporn etc. But when a coffee shop offers free wifi hardly anybody even batters an eye, when in fact there is no difference. In a coffee shop there is no accountability as anybody can use it. And no way to trace the users if they change their computers MAC number, a trivial thing to do.

I don't see a difference between an individual and a corporation (coffee shop or anything else) in that case. Our current internet infrastructure makes it too easy to be anonymous (even if we've recently seen of thin this anonymity really is for some people).Couldn't we find a compromise between free (as much as possible) internet access for everyone and some degree of post-hoc control if needed? I guess my point is that I don't see why there should be a difference regarding anonymity between internet and the physical world.

Great, but does the Finnish judicial system work like the English or the US where precedent cases are basis for similar ones? Because if not than you do know that next week a judge can rule that you are liable.

According to Wikipedia, Finland uses a civil law system (like most of continental Europe), not a common law system, so precedents are likely less important than in the US for instance. That being said, it doesn't necessarily mean that precedents are completely irrelevant either - it just shouldn't be legally binding.

edit: Just to be clear, I don't claim to know the specifics of the Finish legal system.

Editing point: I think the subhead is grammatically incorrect. "Several hundred use a network, someone infringes—can’t blame *for* the owner." Surely this should be simply "can't blame the owner"? See also the front-page subhead: http://d.pr/i/s3eJ

I don't see a difference between an individual and a corporation (coffee shop or anything else) in that case. Our current internet infrastructure makes it too easy to be anonymous (even if we've recently seen of thin this anonymity really is for some people).Couldn't we find a compromise between free (as much as possible) internet access for everyone and some degree of post-hoc control if needed? I guess my point is that I don't see why there should be a difference regarding anonymity between internet and the physical world.

Hotels, coffee shops, libraries, etc... it's a long list, and it ends with... and anybody else that feels like it!!!

Because freedom, dammit!

And before you get any more carried away with "too easy to be anonymous" and "post-hoc control", I have to call BS. It will always be impossible to prevent people from being anonymous on the internet. It will always be possible to circumvent any technology you might attempt to control the internet. All you will build is a system and tools of oppression that beg to be abused by whoever manages to wrestle control of them. The abuse will hurt many people, but the worst perpetrators, the ones you really worry about, will always find another way. Yes, you will catch a few stupid ones, but you will motivate many more lazy ones to step up their game, and even promote the development of deeper avoidance technology. It is an arms race that cannot be won on the technological front without the most terrible price, and almost certainly not even then.

Stop while you are ahead. The internet and computers are only tools. The objectionable things you want to curtail are human actions. Stop them by solving the underlying problems, not by making futile attempts to cripple one of the most useful tools humanity has ever seen.

"I believe that you should be able to pass around encrypted information with anyone you'd like - I don't believe you should be able to anonymously advocateviolence. "

Anonymity is protected by the First Amendment, and advocating violence is also protected speech unless it constitutes incitement to imminent lawless action.

It's therefore a very poor example.

And if passing around encrypted information with anyone I like is legal, there is no way stopping me from acting as a relay for others' encrypted information.

The Tor, I2P, Freenet and other anonymity enabling networks are based on the possibility of computers relaying encryption information.

You can't ban anonymity without banning or chilling the development of strong encryption.

Simply if I have a right to send encrypted data to my friend Bob, and Bob has a right to send encrypted information to his neighbor, Bob can't be stopped from sending mny encrypted information to his neighbor without looking at it.

You can build layer on layer of encryption, and as long as encryption is legal, anonymity will remain a possibility.

And before you get any more carried away with "too easy to be anonymous" and "post-hoc control", I have to call BS. It will always be impossible to prevent people from being anonymous on the internet. It will always be possible to circumvent any technology you might attempt to control the internet. All you will build is a system and tools of oppression that beg to be abused by whoever manages to wrestle control of them. The abuse will hurt many people, but the worst perpetrators, the ones you really worry about, will always find another way. Yes, you will catch a few stupid ones, but you will motivate many more lazy ones to step up their game, and even promote the development of deeper avoidance technology. It is an arms race that cannot be won on the technological front without the most terrible price, and almost certainly not even then.

I don't agree with you on that point. "Always be impossible" are big words. I'm sure that in the current state of affairs, it is not possible to control the internet. However, can't we try to find a middle ground somewhere? I get the feeling that in the mind of some people, more control automatically means more abuse, and I'm not sure that's a proper way to view such things.

exploder wrote:

Stop while you are ahead. The internet and computers are only tools. The objectionable things you want to curtail are human actions. Stop them by solving the underlying problems, not by making futile attempts to cripple one of the most useful tools humanity has ever seen.

I agree on that - almost everything I do, I do it with computers and/or the internet. However, I'm also aware that those human actions you're talking about have existed for a long time, and that we've never been able to solve the underlying problems ; the only thing we've been able to do is control the way those actions are undertaken (we could talk about gun licences, and such).

I would love to have a truly free and free internet ; however, I would also like internet not to be used towards evil means. I'm not sure that there exists a way to conciliate those two views.If the answer is "absolutely no control" because that's not possible and won't ever be possible, I really hope we're going to make enormous headway in solving those underlying problems.

Great, but does the Finnish judicial system work like the English or the US where precedent cases are basis for similar ones? Because if not than you do know that next week a judge can rule that you are liable.

Judges do not write the law, the only interpret it.

If one judge's interpretation of the law goes a particular direction, then chances are very high other judges will draw the same conclusion.

In fact, other judges may even get pissed off over any case brought before them where the defendant is clearly innocent, and the prosecution will be dealt with harshly.

While true, precedent carries _legal_ weight in the US. It's not simply a case of suggestion or "the next guy will probably rule the same," there is generally a greater burden of proof to set aside precedent. That's _why_ precedents are allowed to be entered into legal proceedings. Further, if precedent did not have actual weight, there would be nothing stopping Tennessee from calling Intelligent Design what it is: creationism. The very reason the term "Intelligent Design" exists is because the SCOTUS ruling (i.e. PRECEDENT) declares, in no uncertain terms, that creationism is not science, and cannot be taught in a publicly funded school science class.

There is also a hierarchy of courts. A lower court can't reverse a ruling from a higher court, but a higher court can reverse a ruling of a lower court (again referring back to Scopes, where the teacher was originally convicted, and the higher court reversed the decision, and made that declaration about creationism.)

Now, that said, if the ruling isn't extremely clear (SCOTUS declaring creationism non-science), then there's wiggle room, as found with the SCOTUS ruling barring software patents, that lower courts have since ignored or found loopholes (i.e. eHarmony naming the variables in a standard equation, and just naming them allowing them to patent the algorithm). These are the occasions when the higher court is supposed to step in and reaffirm its ruling, but our current SCOTUS is less-than-stellar, and it hasn't been helped by the extra pro-corporate judges Bush-the-Lesser got to appoint.

Power once granted to the government will *always* be used and expanded to other purposes -not originally foreseen.

In Europe, in the wake of the London terrorist bombing they got mandatory data retention, and already then human rights organizations warned of the possibility of creeping abuse.

Now five years after the the directive, Poland uses the law to go after petty criminals and tax dodgers and the Norwegian security service wants to expand mandatory data retention to all discussion forums.

Your plea for accountability can only be possible in a world in which all datapackets have a social security number and internet access is tied to biometric identification.

"I believe that you should be able to pass around encrypted information with anyone you'd like - I don't believe you should be able to anonymously advocateviolence. "

Anonymity is protected by the First Amendment, and advocating violence is also protected speech unless it constitutes incitement to imminent lawless action.

It's therefore a very poor example.

And if passing around encrypted information with anyone I like is legal, there is no way stopping me from acting as a relay for others' encrypted information.

The Tor, I2P, Freenet and other anonymity enabling networks are based on the possibility of computers relaying encryption information.

You can't ban anonymity without banning or chilling the development of strong encryption.

Simply if I have a right to send encrypted data to my friend Bob, and Bob has a right to send encrypted information to his neighbor, Bob can't be stopped from sending mny encrypted information to his neighbor without looking at it.

You can build layer on layer of encryption, and as long as encryption is legal, anonymity will remain a possibility.

No, anonymity is not protected under the First Amendment, The rights to Freedom of Speech, assembly and Religion are. I doubt that the authors of that paticular document felt that you should be able to say what ever you wanted without anyone knowing who you were. Think about the Decleration fo Independence - remeber they knew they were putting their lives on the line by signing; they did so anyway becuase it was the right thing to do and they were willing to step up an accept any consequences. And the entire point is moot, unless you live in the US like me, and apparently you, do.

Your argument against banning anonymity without chilling encryption is a straw man. There is a difference between anonymity and leaving your packets flapping in the breeze, so to speak. You can encrypt your data in such a way that the recipient is able to know who you are, but that nasty little man-in-the-middle doesn't - they may not even know that there was any data in there. You're conflating anonymity with security.

If the answer is "absolutely no control" because that's not possible and won't ever be possible, I really hope we're going to make enormous headway in solving those underlying problems.

Hey, thanks for a well reasoned reply, and I'm sorry if I came of rather strongly in my first post here, but it is a pretty important topic with deep implications.

Back to the point, I think no control is better. I also hope we're going to make enormous headway solving these problems, because bandaid solutions like diddling around with the internet are not enough. What I hope is that the real strength and decency and compassion of humanity stands a chance of gaining the upper hand, now that We The People finally have a practically free press of our own, and practically free infinite duplication of any information we might find helpful. Those are pretty powerful tools, and I think we stand our best chance yet of making some damned good headway on those problems.

My biggest fear is that, obviously, our biggest current fight is against corporate control of everything. Which means corporate control of the internet for their profit manipulation, if they can get control of tools to take that control. Making those tools is just too damned risky. I cannot support it. I would rather run the risk of no control, and take some comfort that bits are not made of lead like bullets are. This is all information in the end, and I would risk more of it rather than less, every time.

Article: “The court thus examined whether the mere act of providing a WiFi connection not protected with a password can be deemed to constitute a copyright-infringing act.”

... Wow. I just can't believe that sentence. Truly, common sense is no longer common and so everything must be decided upon by people who make laws. ;_;

Else wise, I'm at least glad that they realized it would not be the provider's fault for the theft. "A privilege is only a privilege so long as everyone behaves" is not the best way to operate since one person can automatically destroy it for the rest.

"No, anonymity is not protected under the First Amendment, The rights to Freedom of Speech, assembly and Religion are. I doubt that the authors of thatpaticular document felt that you should be able to say what ever you wanted without anyone knowing who you were."

(1) In fact, you are correct that anonymity is not itself protected by the First Amendment, but the right to speak anonymously is protected by the First Amendment which is well settled law. As far I remember several states have tried, but the courts have said no.

(2) Alexander Hamilton James Madison and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers underthe pseudonym Publius and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal.

"Your argument against banning anonymity without chilling encryption is a straw man. There is a difference between anonymity and leaving your packets flappingin the breeze, so to speak. You can encrypt your data in such a way that the recipient is able to know who you are, but that nasty little man-in-the-middledoesn't - they amy nto even know that there was any data in there. You're conflating anonymity with security. "

And if the man in the middle doesn't know the contents of the data packets it can't be proven or disproven if there is a layer of encryption below the outer layer authenticated by me.

The only way in which you can be certain that there is no encryption within the outer layer is by forcing me to decrypt or legislating that the government must always either have the technical means to decrypt, or forcing me to hand over the encryption key on government request.

But thank you for making it clear where you stand: In your world of accountability, Tor, I2P and Freenet wouldn't exist or would be saddled with a regulatory burden making their functioning impossible.

OT: This ruling is good and makes sense, and is necessary for public WiFi to exist.

Public WiFI might be good thing, but it's not necessary. And if it does exists, it shouldn't be unregulated, if only for the obvious reasons.

Copyright is definitely not necessary even if you are implying it. You would never know it from the screaming of the industry and the paid astroturfers. Some of greatest civilisations and works of art happened during times that nobody had any idea of copyright so obviously society can do without it. Question is what it can do with copyright that is outside of any kind of sensible proportions.

"No, anonymity is not protected under the First Amendment, The rights to Freedom of Speech, assembly and Religion are. I doubt that the authors of thatpaticular document felt that you should be able to say what ever you wanted without anyone knowing who you were."

(1) In fact, you are correct that anonymity is not itself protected by the First Amendment, but the right to speak anonymously is protected by the First Amendment which is well settled law. As far I remember several states have tried, but the courts have said no.

(2) Alexander Hamilton James Madison and John Jay wrote the Federalist Papers underthe pseudonym Publius and "the Federal Farmer" spoke up in rebuttal.

"Your argument against banning anonymity without chilling encryption is a straw man. There is a difference between anonymity and leaving your packets flappingin the breeze, so to speak. You can encrypt your data in such a way that the recipient is able to know who you are, but that nasty little man-in-the-middledoesn't - they amy nto even know that there was any data in there. You're conflating anonymity with security. "

And if the man in the middle doesn't know the contents of the data packets it can't be proven or disproven if there is a layer of encryption below the outer layer authenticated by me.

The only way in which you can be certain that there is no encryption within the outer layer is by forcing me to decrypt or legislating that the government must always either have the technical means to decrypt, or forcing me to hand over the encryption key on government request.

But thank you for making it clear where you stand: In your world of accountability, Tor, I2P and Freenet wouldn't exist or would be saddled with a regulatory burden making their functioning impossible.

You appear to love the eff, but the link you posted is relevant and does not on it's face dispute my argument. Lets look at Talley v. California. This law requiring ID badges was struck down. However the participants were not anonymous - anyone walking by could identify them and hold them acountable for their actions - in my example the acountability is either agreeing with them or disagreeing with them verbally and potentially bringing their actions to the attention of the community in general.

Concerning (2) - a psuedonym does not indicate anonmyity; as can be evidenced by the fact that, well we know the authors you cite in this point.

And, as far as the US goes, what is wrong with decrypting encrypted communications if the 4th Amendment is followed? Please note that I'm specifying that certain rights are upheld in this process, not that the govenrment gets to run rough-shod over them.

And you seem to have taken my belief that you should be willing, and able, to be held accountable for your actions before your community and society to mean that the government needs a backdoor into everything. You seem to have your tinfoil hat on too tight my friend. I'm not arguing for the extreme position complete government involvement, but neither am I for the other extreme position that you espouse. Compromise and cooperation. It's what has helped society continue for the thousands of years that it has. With complete anonymity comes complete lack of accountability. And it's that accountabilty for your own actions that has helped society continue to progrees. Are there hiccups and stumbling points, yes nothing is perfect and in time society has a tendancy to right itself

It will always be possible to circumvent any technology you might attempt to control the internet. All you will build is a system and tools of oppression that beg to be abused by whoever manages to wrestle control of them. The abuse will hurt many people, but the worst perpetrators, the ones you really worry about, will always find another way.

This is true but before you get carried away with this argument it's important to remember that our entire criminal justice system is an arms race and the most clever criminals will always find a way to beat the system. Given that is a fact that doesn't mean we should just abandon any attempt at law enforcement. The true litmus test is when does the enforcement burden the rest of society more than it helps the criminals. In the case of stupid schemes like DRM I think the answer is quite obvious.

Im speaking in generalizations here so don't think I'm sticking up for the RIAA/MPAA. I think they are completely wrong and misguided and their attempts to control will backfire. But I do think that the Internet is still in it's infancy and is still kind of a wild west but eventually some sort of equilibrium will be reached and I think it will get harder to remain anonymous.

"You appear to love the eff, but the link you posted is relevant and does not on it's face dispute my argument. Lets look at Talley v. California. Thislaw requiring ID badges was struck down. However the participants were not anonymous - anyone walking by could identify them and hold them acountable fortheir actions - in my example the acountability is either agreeing with them or disagreeing with them verbally and potentially bringing their actions tothe attention of the community in general."

The court in Talley did not held the law unconstitutional on the narrow ground that handing out anonymous leaflets is protected as long as the author's face is visible to the recipient. This is a really wrong and counterintuitive interpretation of the law,and has not been endorsed by courts applying the anonymous speech principle to internet communication.

If I can only hand out a leaflet to a stranger who knows who I am the author, he/she knows whom to target for retaliation.

Your interpretation of Tally would make the anonymous speech principle inapplicable to internet communication, but fortunately yt isn't so.

See ACLU of Georgia v. Miller (N.D. Ga. 1997) 977 F. Supp. 1228 (striking down a Georgia statute that would have made it a crime for Internet users to falsely identify themselves online).

"Concerning (2) - a psuedonym does not indicate anonmyity; as can be evidenced by the fact that, well we know the authors you cite in this point."

We know their identity now, but the federalist papers were published anonymously.

Pseudonymity is different from anonymity, but a pseudonym does not necessarily prove or verify the identity of the author.

"And, as far as the US goes, what is wrong with decrypting encrypted communications if the 4th Amendment is followed? Please note that I'm specifying that

certain rights are upheld in this process, not that the govenrment gets to run rough-shod over them."

That's not the government's business to force me to aid in my own prosecution. Without mandatory decryption and key escrow the government could never ban real anonymity.

I believe that you have a right to absolute anonymity, because it like free speech and gun rights might be last resort in the case that the government becomes tyrannical.

When the government fears the people we have liberty, but when the people fears the government we have tyranny. Banning real untraceable anonymity is the war to tyranny.

How many "crimes" are you committing everyday? I suppose you might answer none, but read:

There are so many federal "crimes" that even speaking to a federal official in a way that could be construed as making a false statement may get you in hot water.

If online anonymity is outlawed, and the government can hold everyone accountable, the ease with which technology enables automated profiling and data collection is a temtation for prosecuting even minor crimes and creating new "crimes" out of thin air.

"And you seem to have taken my belief that you should be willing, and able, to be held accountable for your actions before your community and society tomean that the government needs a backdoor into everything. You seem to have your tinfoil hat on too tight my friend. I'm not arguing for the extreme positioncomplete government involvement, but neither am I for the other extreme position that you espouse. Compromise and cooperation. It's what has helped societycontinue for the thousands of years that it has. With complete anonymity comes complete lack of accountability. And it's that accountabilty for your ownactions that has helped society continue to progrees. Are there hiccups and stumbling points, yes nothing is perfect and in time society has a tendancyto right itself "

If you don't advocate that the government should have a backdoor into everything, would you please elaborate on how it could be done without also banning projects like Tor, I2P and Freenet --assuming that these projects are beneficial to humanity.

If the goal is that any data packet must be traceable to someone who must be prepared to carry legal responsibility, I can't see how it can be done without banning these noble projects.

If yourposition is as it seems to be that any infrastructure facilitating untraceable anonymity must be outlawed as soon as it is used to do something illegal (including violation of any federal, state or municipal law) the only protection for the citizens is paper regulations which the government may always take away.

The government starts to log internet communication, but promises only to use it in counterterrorism cases.

You haven't addressed the point that any government mandate by experience is always expanded to new crimes.

If I can only hand out a leaflet to a stranger who knows who I am the author, he/she knows whom to target for retaliation.

Your interpretation of Tally would make the anonymous speech principle inapplicable to internet communication, but fortunately yt isn't so.

We know their identity now, but the federalist papers were published anonymously.

Pseudonymity is different from anonymity, but a pseudonym does not necessarily prove or verify the identity of the author.

"And, as far as the US goes, what is wrong with decrypting encrypted communications if the 4th Amendment is followed? Please note that I'm specifying that

certain rights are upheld in this process, not that the govenrment gets to run rough-shod over them."

That's not the government's business to force me to aid in my own prosecution. Without mandatory decryption and key escrow the government could never ban real anonymity.

I believe that you have a right to absolute anonymity, because it like free speech and gun rights might be last resort in the case that the government becomes tyrannical.

When the government fears the people we have liberty, but when the people fears the government we have tyranny. Banning real untraceable anonymity is the war to tyranny.

If online anonymity is outlawed, and the government can hold everyone accountable, the ease with which technology enables automated profiling and data collection is a temtation for prosecuting even minor crimes and creating new "crimes" out of thin air.

"And you seem to have taken my belief that you should be willing, and able, to be held accountable for your actions before your community and society tomean that the government needs a backdoor into everything. You seem to have your tinfoil hat on too tight my friend. I'm not arguing for the extreme positioncomplete government involvement, but neither am I for the other extreme position that you espouse. Compromise and cooperation. It's what has helped societycontinue for the thousands of years that it has. With complete anonymity comes complete lack of accountability. And it's that accountabilty for your ownactions that has helped society continue to progrees. Are there hiccups and stumbling points, yes nothing is perfect and in time society has a tendancyto right itself "

If you don't advocate that the government should have a backdoor into everything, would you please elaborate on how it could be done without also banning projects like Tor, I2P and Freenet --assuming that these projects are beneficial to humanity.

If the goal is that any data packet must be traceable to someone who must be prepared to carry legal responsibility, I can't see how it can be done without banning these noble projects.

If yourposition is as it seems to be that any infrastructure facilitating untraceable anonymity must be outlawed as soon as it is used to do something illegal (including violation of any federal, state or municipal law) the only protection for the citizens is paper regulations which the government may always take away.

You haven't addressed the point that any government mandate by experience is always expanded to new crimes.

Watch your ankles with some of those leaps your making.

We'll start at the top. No, the person you hand the leaflet to does not have to know you. However you are identifiable by members of the community.

Please note that I'm not saying government. I'm saying community/society, it's the superset that includes government, but does not neccessarily indicate that the government is neccessarily able to identify based on your communications. They still have to build a case, taking the US Constitutional rights into account, be that getting the person on the other end of the communication to identify you and provide the key or communications.

I'm saying that you have a societal obligation to the community and society you belong to to accept that your actions may have consequences. Whether that is through moral exclusion due to differing beliefs, legal means because the community has deemed your actions beyond what is acceptable or support because the cause is just (in the case of tyrannical rule).

You seem to be equating community and society with Government, but the two are not mutally inclusive and in some cases maybe mutually exclusive depending on the representation of a given societal segment in the government.

And to address the point that any government mandate by experience is always expanded to new crimes. Well stagnant laws and applications can be just as repressive. They need to adjust based upon the changes in society. It's societies job to declare when it's gone to far and to work to correct the situation. And laws that are too narrowly taliored also become repressive and outdated; as well as being difficult to change.

"No, the person you hand the leaflet to does not have to know you. However you are identifiable by members of the community.

Please note that I'm not saying government. I'm saying community/society, it's the superset that includes government, but does not neccessarily indicatethat the government is neccessarily able to identify based on your communications. They still have to build a case, taking the US Constitutional rightsinto account, be that getting the person on the other end of the communication to identify you and provide the key or communications."

Absent a legal mandate the government can't force me to decrypt or hand over my key.

I took your argument as advocating that anonymity should be subject to government regulation, rather than being subject to mere social exclusion.

This is true but before you get carried away with this argument it's important to remember that our entire criminal justice system is an arms race and the most clever criminals will always find a way to beat the system. Given that is a fact that doesn't mean we should just abandon any attempt at law enforcement. The true litmus test is when does the enforcement burden the rest of society more than it helps the criminals. In the case of stupid schemes like DRM I think the answer is quite obvious.

Im speaking in generalizations here so don't think I'm sticking up for the RIAA/MPAA. I think they are completely wrong and misguided and their attempts to control will backfire. But I do think that the Internet is still in it's infancy and is still kind of a wild west but eventually some sort of equilibrium will be reached and I think it will get harder to remain anonymous.

Hey, I fully acknowledge the idea you're driving at that enforcement happens as best it can, is always an arms race, and we live with that, etc.. But I have to ask you this then:

How would you feel about an "equilibrium" or "compromise" on women's or racial rights, really any kind of human rights?

And how do you feel about "equilibrium" or "compromise" on rights against unwarranted search and seizure?

NO I SAY. It's a matter of principle sometimes. Some principles are worth fighting for. In this case freedom of information and communication for everybody. Full unfettered freedom. We accept the penalties because the overall principles are more noble, the positive results overwhelmingly worth fighting for.

With regards to a deeply free internet: I don't think that creates a "wild west" that needs to be tamed. I think it creates a society that finally has a chance to fight back against fraud and oppression and corruption and lies and manipulations. I think the opportunities will always be there for people to do wrong on-line and off-line, no matter how hard we try to enforce. What we need is the unfettered freedom to learn and know better, so that we can avoid being victims, and have the best tools to expose and fight the real abuses in real life where they start.

We also need to be specific and honest about our current situation: I find it particularly worrying that at this point in history, it seems like a dangerous, menacing conjunction of corporate and government interests has occurred, that threatens to almost fully disenfranchise the public at large, leaving only a very wealthy elite with any real say or representation in what happens in society (Mussolini called that fascism BTW, and he spoke with rare authority on the subject). I think we need to be honest that for the foreseeable future, anyone who has any power to regulate or enforce on the internet, will likely be exactly those against whom the public at large needs every advantage we can get. Every chance we have to break corrupt secrecy; to share information that should by rights be free but is not by corrupted law; to cooperate and collude unfettered in our own public interest; these are precious opportunities aided by this wonderfully free internet, freedom that I pray will not be restricted.

I am aware that I deserve to be called idealistic for these comments; I think there is a time for that, and this is one that cries out more loudly than ever before. I am also aware that I might be called paranoid, but I must reject that in the face of abundant evidence that systems of control of the internet get badly abused by those with power, very much to the detriment of the public interest. It is happening all over the world at this very moment, and many real lives are lost, people murdered, as a result.

I am willing to damn the torpedoes and shout loudly in favor of free internet, on principle. Compromise on this point will inevitably favor worse abuse than freedom allows.